According to Brooks, these contracts will be accepted as
long as the NHLPA accepts these terms:

1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not
count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit
would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.

2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five
years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five
years with the highest salary.

If the NHLPA doesn't go for it, the NHL will start spiking
contracts: Beginning with Kovalchuk and Luongo.

The first provision might have some popular support, if only
because it would help eliminate the ridiculous forecasting of goalies playing
at 43 years old and Russian snipers playing until 44.

The second provision, however, dramatically rewrites the
rules for long-term deals. Henrik Zetterberg's(notes) 12-year, $73-million deal, for
example, has a cap hit of $6.083 million thanks to a couple of $1 million
seasons when Zetterberg is over 40. Under the proposal Brooks is reporting,
that cap hit for a deal like that would no doubt balloon because Zetterberg has nine years over $7
million in base salary, and seven over $7.5 million.

(Keep in mind the Zetterberg contract is safe; we're just using it as an example.)

But that brings us back to a often-repeated point about
these deals: Aren't some of them virtuous?

Should slightly lowering a cap hit, with a couple of
reasonably salaried seasons at the end, in order to maintain the cores of
competitive teams be something that's demonized? Can't it
actually be good for hockey in some cases that don't rise to the calculated
absurdity of Kovalchuk's first contract?

If the NY Post is spot-on about this -- and let's remember, that's never a given -- it'll be fascinating
to see what type of stand the NHLPA attempts to take here, as the NHL uses the
Kovalchuk cases as a pressure point on long-term deals.